Immigration

[crimson80]

I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement.  Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.

I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them.  Fuck those minarchist assholes.  You hate brown people and you know it.  What's the point in not being combative with you.  You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes.  I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born.  Why do you?

lol.  what a douchebag.  

I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others.  You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property.  And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.  

[Cognitive Dissident]

I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement.  Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.

I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them.  Fuck those minarchist assholes.  You hate brown people and you know it.  What's the point in not being combative with you.  You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes.  I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born.  Why do you?

lol.  what a douchebag.  

I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others.  You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property.  And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.  

You see, that's your screw-up.  If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."

[crimson80]

I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement.  Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.

I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them.  Fuck those minarchist assholes.  You hate brown people and you know it.  What's the point in not being combative with you.  You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes.  I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born.  Why do you?

lol.  what a douchebag.  

I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others.  You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property.  And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.  

You see, that's your screw-up.  If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."

that's a bad semantic argument.  I don't buy that the two are exclusionary.  If you believe in the idea of a country with citizens owning private property, then you have collective property as a nation.  I don't use the term collective property in any type of communist, shared ownership sense.  I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons. 

Again it comes down to whether you believe in the basic idea of a state. 

[Ecolitan]

  I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons. 

That's right.  You don't own my land and you have no right to tell me who I can rent my spare room to.  If I am free and another individual is free and that individual wants to rent a room and I have a room then only an enemy of freedom would tell us we can't do that for any reason whatsoever, the location of either of our births being about the most ludicrous reason I can think of beyond stuff like the color of our socks.

[gibson042]

That gets more epic every time you post it.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement.  Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.

I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them.  Fuck those minarchist assholes.  You hate brown people and you know it.  What's the point in not being combative with you.  You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes.  I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born.  Why do you?

lol.  what a douchebag.  

I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others.  You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property.  And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.  

You see, that's your screw-up.  If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."

that's a bad semantic argument.  I don't buy that the two are exclusionary.  If you believe in the idea of a country with citizens owning private property, then you have collective property as a nation.  I don't use the term collective property in any type of communist, shared ownership sense.  I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons. 

Again it comes down to whether you believe in the basic idea of a state. 

If your property is only yours, it's not also the state's.  To say otherwise is to say other people have control over my property, which is clearly nonsense (though a quite common view amongst socialists.)

[crimson80]

  I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons. 

That's right.  You don't own my land and you have no right to tell me who I can rent my spare room to.  If I am free and another individual is free and that individual wants to rent a room and I have a room then only an enemy of freedom would tell us we can't do that for any reason whatsoever, the location of either of our births being about the most ludicrous reason I can think of beyond stuff like the color of our socks.

So for instance if you wanted to rent a room to a serial killer, child molester, war criminal, or any other person that has broken laws, you don't think anyone has a right to object?  Obviously illegal immigrants are nowhere near as heinous as the examples I listed, but we're arguing on principles here.  

[gibson042]

So for instance if you wanted to rent a room to a serial killer, child molester, war criminal, or any other person that has broken laws, you don't think anyone has a right to object?  Obviously illegal immigrants are nowhere near as heinous as the examples I listed, but we're arguing on principles here. 

And I suppose that you're okay with renting to cannabis users, speeders, tax resisters, and jaywalkers?

[Ecolitan]

That's right.  You don't own my land and you have no right to tell me who I can rent my spare room to.  If I am free and another individual is free and that individual wants to rent a room and I have a room then only an enemy of freedom would tell us we can't do that for any reason whatsoever, the location of either of our births being about the most ludicrous reason I can think of beyond stuff like the color of our socks.

So for instance if you wanted to rent a room to a serial killer, child molester, war criminal, or any other person that has broken laws, you don't think anyone has a right to object?  Obviously illegal immigrants are nowhere near as heinous as the examples I listed, but we're arguing on principles here.  
[/quote]

Yes principles.  Mine being you don't INITIATE force on a person or their property.  the serial killer, child molesters and war criminals initiated force and must be prevented from doing more of the same.  Renting a room is not a crime and not sufficient reason for you to defend yourself from him.

[crimson80]

I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement.  Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.

I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them.  Fuck those minarchist assholes.  You hate brown people and you know it.  What's the point in not being combative with you.  You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes.  I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born.  Why do you?

lol.  what a douchebag.  

I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others.  You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property.  And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.  

You see, that's your screw-up.  If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."

that's a bad semantic argument.  I don't buy that the two are exclusionary.  If you believe in the idea of a country with citizens owning private property, then you have collective property as a nation.  I don't use the term collective property in any type of communist, shared ownership sense.  I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons. 

Again it comes down to whether you believe in the basic idea of a state. 

If your property is only yours, it's not also the state's.  To say otherwise is to say other people have control over my property, which is clearly nonsense (though a quite common view amongst socialists.)

You're treating the issue as 100% black and white.  I think there is a little gray because IMO it is necessary for the state to have limited powers over land issues.  

[digitalfour]

So your argument is basically that all government is illegitimate, therefore borders are illegitimate.  I think that's a pretty weak argument.  I'll have to elaborate on this at a later time though.

Weak argument? Show me a government that governs purely with the consent of the governed, then.

[crimson80]

That's right.  You don't own my land and you have no right to tell me who I can rent my spare room to.  If I am free and another individual is free and that individual wants to rent a room and I have a room then only an enemy of freedom would tell us we can't do that for any reason whatsoever, the location of either of our births being about the most ludicrous reason I can think of beyond stuff like the color of our socks.

So for instance if you wanted to rent a room to a serial killer, child molester, war criminal, or any other person that has broken laws, you don't think anyone has a right to object?  Obviously illegal immigrants are nowhere near as heinous as the examples I listed, but we're arguing on principles here.  

Yes principles.  Mine being you don't INITIATE force on a person or their property.  the serial killer, child molesters and war criminals initiated force and must be prevented from doing more of the same.  Renting a room is not a crime and not sufficient reason for you to defend yourself from him.
[/quote]

So you've changed your position.  First it was you can't do that because it's MY property.  Now it's you can't do that unless blah blah blah.  Private property is not a blanket shield from laws.  

[Bill Brasky]

So your argument is basically that all government is illegitimate, therefore borders are illegitimate.  I think that's a pretty weak argument.  I'll have to elaborate on this at a later time though.

Weak argument? Show me a government that governs purely with the consent of the governed, then.

The Vatican. 

[Ecolitan]

So you've changed your position.  First it was you can't do that because it's MY property.  Now it's you can't do that unless blah blah blah.  Private property is not a blanket shield from laws. 

That's not a change.  You don't mess with a person or their property, it is criminal.  When you encounter a criminal (or he encounters you since he's the aggressor) it's ok to use force to defend your equal right to be secure in your person or property but only if HE initiates it. 

Your examples, murderers etc all initiated force on a person or their property.  The illegal alien didn't do anything but be born in the wrong place.  The location of his birth is not going to harm you, it's not a danger you have no right to use force on his person or his property.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement.  Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.

I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them.  Fuck those minarchist assholes.  You hate brown people and you know it.  What's the point in not being combative with you.  You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes.  I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born.  Why do you?

lol.  what a douchebag.  

I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others.  You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property.  And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.  

You see, that's your screw-up.  If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."

that's a bad semantic argument.  I don't buy that the two are exclusionary.  If you believe in the idea of a country with citizens owning private property, then you have collective property as a nation.  I don't use the term collective property in any type of communist, shared ownership sense.  I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons. 

Again it comes down to whether you believe in the basic idea of a state. 

If your property is only yours, it's not also the state's.  To say otherwise is to say other people have control over my property, which is clearly nonsense (though a quite common view amongst socialists.)

You're treating the issue as 100% black and white.  I think there is a little gray because IMO it is necessary for the state to have limited powers over land issues.  

If there must be a state, it would only have power to settle land contract disputes.